Those of us who believe Australia needs more housing are accustomed to pushback from change-averse hermits and self-interested home-hoarders. Collectively, we call these folk NIMBYs for their “not in my backyard” reflex against reasonable, necessary developments in their area.
But those in the opposing YIMBY (yes in my backyard) movement are also accustomed to criticism from a contingent of left-wing sceptics. These sceptics typically profess no love for NIMBYs, but revile YIMBYs just as much for supposed market fetishism and private-sector bias.
Academics Alistair Sisson and Kurt Iveson, for instance, characterised the YIMBY movement as inadequate in Arena magazine last week, seeking a greater focus on public housing and rent control. Earlier this year, Crikey’s Guy Rundle similarly hit back at my arguments for more apartment buildings and less red tape, claiming heritage and zoning reform was a dead end and that entire new cities should be built instead.
As YIMBYs face heat from some on the left, they have begun to win over some on the right. On Saturday, the NSW Liberal state convention passed a “YIMBY” housing policy, committing to rezone areas proximate to public transport hubs for more density, reward councils for meeting housing targets, and impose a “NIMBY penalty” for councils that don’t hit their targets.
So, is YIMBYism right-wing? Not so fast. The majority of the movement’s sympathisers are left-leaning. Some, feeling cross-pressured between associational puritanism and the movement’s broad ideological tent, do so somewhat apologetically.
But I, for one, feel no need to apologise. While one can reach the same conclusions by different reasoning, there remains a strong congruity between housing abundance and social democracy. I support the former because, not in spite, of my politics.
To the left, to the left
The defining creed of YIMBYism is that we need more housing, and to enable such, it must be easier to build. While there are some free-marketeer YIMBYs who just want the removal of procedural barriers to private development — after which resulting housing outcomes would be “natural” — there is a sizeable and growing left faction for whom this isn’t enough. For them, the state ought to increase housing levels by whatever means necessary to meet human needs, including by investing in public housing. Even in California, the birthplace of YIMBY politics with the strongest association with Silicon Valley libertarianism, the left faction is growing and pushing for public housing in state politics.
Left-wing YIMBYs are distinguished from other public housing advocates by two factors. Firstly, they care deeply about planning reform. As writer Eleanor Robertson recently said, “If you can’t build medium density private housing anywhere convenient, you can’t build medium density public housing.” This concern aligns with a critique of “grassroots” localism — too often fetishised on the left — which frequently bleeds into parochialism. Advocates prefer decisions to be made at the state level, so broader constituencies are represented — including renters, who frequently move across council borders.
Secondly, lefty YIMBYs want more of everything, not just public housing. This offends some leftists who see “luxury” offerings as benefiting only the rich. But aside from many developers labelling thinly concealed shitboxes as “luxury”, much like how McDonald’s calls its more expensive burgers “gourmet”, an overall increase in supply benefits everyone. More homes bring more competition between sellers and landlords, something our system sorely lacks. Right now, landlords are raising rents because they know they can get away with it — with vacancy rates at record lows, where else are their tenants going to go?
Housing abundance is desirable for the same reason full employment is. When jobs are plentiful, employers have to improve their pay and conditions to attract and retain staff. We need regulation and unions too, as some people can’t change jobs easily (nor houses), but options strengthen their hands. The right grasps this well. Through tight fiscal and monetary policy, they ration access to both jobs and housing to preserve the power of capital and the value of their assets.
Another misunderstood insinuation is that YIMBYism represents “trickle-down economics”. Sure, YIMBYs evoke the concept of filtering, whereby newer houses are often snapped up by better-paid people and the older houses they vacate then become available for lesser-paid people. But that’s different to the fantasy economics of Ronald Reagan, whereby the benefits of cutting top tax rates would somehow magically cascade downward. This entailed blind faith in the rich using their extra dollars to compete to produce productive services, without any discernible mechanisms to ensure it. Why wouldn’t they just spend it on a new yacht or designer handbag?
Conversely, reducing the time and costs associated with building houses creates direct incentives with obvious benefits. The conversion of those incentives into outcomes would be aided by public investment, taxes on vacant lots and developers’ occasional drip-feeding tactics. But even absent this, as even Sisson and Iveson recognise, “there is some fairly solid evidence that housing supply militates against prices”.
Please, sir, may we have some more?
Sisson and Iveson understandably worry “whether it [more housing supply] can actually produce housing affordable for low-income households”. The answer is probably not any time soon, given how far behind we are, so welfare payments are also necessary. I’m even open to reasonable rent control, particularly for incumbent tenants to reduce displacement, provided it’s coupled with strong enforcement of no-grounds eviction bans.
But Sisson and Iveson’s conclusion of evaluating developments on a case-by-case basis remains weak. Sure, block developments that result in less or negligible additional housing, but there must be an overall emphasis on increasing stock.
If there is to be a progressive critique of the emerging bipartisan embrace of YIMBY politics, it’s that it doesn’t go far enough. Politicians have embraced the rhetoric of YIMBYism, and are slating some legislative changes, but the scale of their ambition remains limited — no doubt in part due to fear of wealthy vested interests.
Scarce housing is a form of austerity, just as scarce jobs are. The left should call on politicians to deliver the opposite — abundance for the people.
Are you a NIMBY or a YIMBY? Tell us why by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
